If you like this Idea, keep the thread going, get the Devs to do it

[MrVicchio]

http://boards.station.sony.com/ubb/planetside/Forum8/HTML/006966.html

Give it a look and add your thoughts if you like it.

Thanks, Mr.Vicchio.

[PeregineDive]

Done. Once again, great ideas MrVicchio!


-PD

[1024]

Replyed as SpikeSpiegel

[MrVicchio]

SporkfirePS
Developer posted 07-15-2003 11:17 AM user search report post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We're looking at a lot of areas where we can spice up the gameplay, including new modes of play and heightening the commitment players feel toward the war and the land they keep. A Victory Condition might be interesting, though I can't guarantee anything like that will make it into the game. I'll note the suggestion though.
Victor Wachter
Community Relations Representative
Many questions can be answered by reading the PlanetSide Game Info and FAQ

[Hamma]

Victory conditions would suck.

[Bad Mojo]

Originally posted by MrVicchio

The game has a point, for some of us, but to the average gamer.. why play a game with no end? This also seems to be the sentiement among a number of people that visit PSU that have declinded to renew. I speak with many players, and thats one of thier big complaints... whats the point if you can't win...



I have a question about this. If I play BF:1942, what is the "winning condition" of that game? I'm not talking about maps, but if I join a pickup server, how do I "win" that server? After how many maps of playing BF:1942 can I say, "I won"? Same with Quake3 or CS. Perhaps I could win a tournament, or I could beat the single-player version of BF:1942. But how do I win the general BF:1942 server that I play on?

See what I'm asking?

If I play CS on pickup servers all day, map after map after map, what's the difference between that and capping base after base after base? Do people just need a little window to pop up and say, "YOU WIN!"?

[IDgaf]

In BF1942, though, there's a point where you can say 'Our tickets are almost out, we have to do this NOW or we don't win'.

While there is a lot of that in PS, it's not quite the same - and it's that very je ne sais quoi that might improve the game.

[Bad Mojo]

Originally posted by IDgaf
In BF1942, though, there's a point where you can say 'Our tickets are almost out, we have to do this NOW or we don't win'.

While there is a lot of that in PS, it's not quite the same - and it's that very je ne sais quoi that might improve the game.

Let me get this straight. There's a thing in BF:1942 that makes it different. But that thing happens in PS all the time. But it's just ... different? Why? If you can't quantify the difference, how can anyone change it?

Maybe it's that on a pick-up server, the teams can be auto-balanced, but they can't be in PS per base, only per continent. If that's the case, maybe it's better to fix that than try to make the game "winnable".

Personally, I think the difference isn't the game, but the ATTITUDES of the people. Like they are inventing a reason to not play instead of trying it and finding out they like it. Just my opinion there. I'm not them, so I don't know. If PS was winnable, then what? Since everyone just respawns and the game starts over, who is really the winner? The person who won? What if they lose the next game? Are they still winners? Who lost?

Real war is the only time anyone REALLY wins. And even then, we all lose.

[pauljar1]

Can you post the actual information from the official boards? My work firewall won't let me to the information...

[IDgaf]

Ultimately the difference is quantifiable, but it would require a lot of investigation.

It would probably cover BF1942, PS, human evolution, motivation, stress, emotion and a hell of a lot more.

While I could certainly research the issue, it'd take away time from playing the game.

Anyway, at least we're talking about the issue and discussing; always the first step.

IDgaf.

[Hexen]

I reckon victory conditions would rock. :P

I've always known that eventually the game will get old. Taking a base is pretty pointless right now, besides the experience gain obviously. Even if you manage to get every continent on your server locked (which is just that damn unlikely), you can't really do anything after that. Honestly, do you guys actually think any side will actually ever manage to lock every single continent? Its going to happen maybe two or three times in the entire life of the game I bet.

The point with this idea is to get the feeling that you're fighting for victory, right now we're fighting for nothing. All it can do is improve gameplay because it'll make players more involved with their empires situation, because they know they can actually win or lose, things matter.

Oh and dont compare to other FPS games damnit, it doesn't matter at all. PS is a game of its own and theres no reason why the way other games work should have any impact on PS at all. You still win standard FPS games anyway, each round or level change you've either won or lost. Basically every game out there gives you the ability to win and lose, except all those damn MMORPGs. Nothing wrong with PlanetSide stepping out of the MMO-You-cant-win standard.

[Deadfist]

The door bug is actually a lag bug. I had it, it was horrible; i got dsl, it went away. Get a faster connection.

[1024]

Originally posted by MrVicchio
SporkfirePS
Developer posted 07-15-2003 11:17 AM user search report post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We're looking at a lot of areas where we can spice up the gameplay, including new modes of play and heightening the commitment players feel toward the war and the land they keep. A Victory Condition might be interesting, though I can't guarantee anything like that will make it into the game. I'll note the suggestion though.
Victor Wachter
Community Relations Representative
Many questions can be answered by reading the PlanetSide Game Info and FAQ


this means he doesn't give a shit but he's trying to act liek he cares.

[Bad Mojo]

Originally posted by Hexen

The point with this idea is to get the feeling that you're fighting for victory, right now we're fighting for nothing. All it can do is improve gameplay because it'll make players more involved with their empires situation, because they know they can actually win or lose, things matter.


Ok, I'm going to tell you that you can win. I know other people might tell you otherwise, but it's not true. You CAN win. If you get a total lock on every continent, you can invade the sancs and capture the towers there and you will "WIN"! Does that help? :)

[BUGGER]

Originally posted by Hamma
Victory conditions would suck. Yea.





tho if it would bring more players to the game, make a separate server or 2 wich has games such as CTF and DM. i dunno, tho it would be better if u would hav access to everything in CTF or sumtin.....

[Hexen]

Mojo: Nope. :P

If you really win, obviously the game would have to reset itself. :)

[Bad Mojo]

Originally posted by Hexen
Mojo: Nope. :P

If you really win, obviously the game would have to reset itself. :)

Obviously this happens after you cap all the towers. That's what I meant by "WIN".

[Hexen]

... Meh.

[Mazzic]

Originally posted by 1024
this means he doesn't give a shit but he's trying to act liek he cares.

No, if means thats he's learned his lesson. He won't promise us anything because he knows we'll shove it right back down the their collective throats if it doesn't get put into the Game.

[Adun]

If that happens, i could see a faction winning about once a week.

Problem is, that tears down the story. It could really mess some stuff up.

If a faction would win, how long can they enjoy it while the other factions cant play? or do the other factions play as civilians of the winning team or something?

[teratravp]

the game sorely needs victory conditions/possibilities. I'm not going to expend anymore brain power on the subject but tell me why basketball/chess/and counterstrike are all winnable and PS is not. see, if people want to goof off in a game, they still can, but to remove the win condition alltogether and just say entertain yourself makes it not a game. it's apparently just some big virtual world where we all carry virtual pistols, can shoot each other dead, exchange control of bases and that's it. I've given a metric ton of creative suggestions about where they could go with this game to make it more satisfying and I'm not trying anymore. it'll either be a pleasant miracle that they throw some key additions into this game or more stringing along with the only communication coming from an (annoying, but that's partly his job's fault) public relations rep

[AcidCat]

Originally posted by Bad Mojo
I have a question about this. If I play BF:1942, what is the "winning condition" of that game? I'm not talking about maps, but if I join a pickup server, how do I "win" that server? After how many maps of playing BF:1942 can I say, "I won"? Same with Quake3 or CS. Perhaps I could win a tournament, or I could beat the single-player version of BF:1942. But how do I win the general BF:1942 server that I play on?

See what I'm asking?

If I play CS on pickup servers all day, map after map after map, what's the difference between that and capping base after base after base? Do people just need a little window to pop up and say, "YOU WIN!"?

THANK YOU. I'm glad someone understands why I think there is absolutely no need to "win" PlanetSide. Because the "win" of any other FPS is so fleeting as to be inconsequential. How long does it take to load the next map? You're telling me those few moments of victory are the reason you play the game???

For me, when it comes to multiplayer games, the gameplay itself is its own reward. I played many many hours of Battlefield for example, and it wasn't winning rounds that motivated me or kept me coming back for more, it was the gameplay itself, it was so fun, it didn't matter if my team won the round or not, in fact the end of any round was just a minor annoyance until the action could start again.

[Hexen]

I'm starting to think that some people need that momentory feeling of victory, whereas others don't. Judging by the replies on this thread.

The simple fact is that in PS, you don't win or ever feel an overall victory ever.

In standard FPS games, you or your team either wins or loses when the round ends, or the map changes.

In this respect, you can basically view PlanetSide as a game of conquest Battlefield 1942, where tickets are infinite. Players would just run around taking outposts indefinitely, never reaching victory.

All this thread is really about is having some way to win. It might not seem like a big deal to some people, and those people obviously dont have that feeling as though nothing they really do impacts the in-game war. Some people would prefer the game be winnable, even if you never actually reach victory, simply because they know it is possible.

[Vis Armata]

Even if you don't like a victory condition, the game needs some stability - the fronts are so fluid that even for someone who just likes to play (myself, for example) the game can get a little exasperating. Sanctuary strikes would be interesting to see, but stabilizing the fronts (better base defense, reworked or scrapped lattice) seems more like the better route.